News: Cowboys Considering LB Daryl Washington

[KingintheNorth]

I remember SF calling it the elephant and they ran Harris out of it. Getting caught up in jargon seems counterproductive given the nature of the subject.

"Elephant" or "Leo,"a relatively newer term but it is a hybrid Sam Linebacker/Rush End spot.

It seems like Elephant is used more in 3-4 schemes, where 4-3 teams call it a Leo.

In our defense we call it Hyena (Hybrid).

 

[AsthmaField]

If you handle it the right way, it absolutely worth the time and effort.

The only way this would be a bad idea is if you think the Cowboys front office is dumb. Is that what you think?

No... the fan base is.

 

[AsthmaField]

IMO any team that signs DW will only offer a 1 year, prove it deal.
So, there would be very little guaranteed incase he screws up in some way.

Right.

And if he plays really well on that 1 year deal, then what? You sign him to another 1 year? If he plays well he will likely want a longer contract. Even if he again takes a 1 year deal and you pencil him in as a starter after his great year and you aren't on the hook for very much money... then you still will be caught with your pants down if he gets suspended in the middle of October or something.

The risk isn't the money, IMO. It is him playing well and then getting suspended just when you're relying on him.

Sure you could have a good backup but these suspensions and the media firestorm they create are a greater issue than simply having to replace a player. It isn't like an injury that you just plug in a backup. They create strife and discord that ripples through the entire franchise.

 

[xwalker]

For those that are wondering, he was suspended twice for pot and also for pushing his baby mama in a custody dispute and breaking her collarbone.

Was he in a status the past 3 years where he didn't have to get drug tested by the NFL ?

AZ didn't release him until he returned to eligible status recently.

It would kind of suck to have to get tested for 3 years when you're not playing or practicing with a team.

 

[xwalker]

Right.

And if he plays really well on that 1 year deal, then what? You sign him to another 1 year? If he plays well he will likely want a longer contract. Even if he again takes a 1 year deal and you pencil him in as a starter after his great year and you aren't on the hook for very much money... then you still will be caught with your pants down if he gets suspended in the middle of October or something.

The risk isn't the money, IMO. It is him playing well and then getting suspended just when you're relying on him.

Sure you could have a good backup but these suspensions and the media firestorm they create are a greater issue than simply having to replace a player. It isn't like an injury that you just plug in a backup. They create strife and discord that ripples through the entire franchise.

You have a good point. Once you cut to 53 and use a roster spot on a player, it's a negative even if you don't have to pay him. You likely lost a player that you could have kept on the 53 and/or you didn't look for a veteran stop-gap like Durant because you have Washington.

 

[AsthmaField]

Which of course doesn't answer the question.

The only way bringing him in could hurt the Cowboys is if you think the front office would be dumb enough to give him a long term deal at some point.

So I'll ask again. Do you believe the front office is dumb enough to do that?

First word in my post to you.

No.

 

[Sydla]

First word in my post to you.

No.

OK.

You just undermined one of your talking points against bringing him in. Because you started this entire thing by wondering what happens if he plays well? Well if he plays well but you believe the Cowboys aren't stupid, then there is nothing to worry about here. The Cowboys will make the right call when that time comes.

It's not like we are dripping with LB talent at this point either. So its not like we'd have to make a tough call on a talented, young LB to give Washington a roster spot.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Was he in a status the past 3 years where he didn't have to get drug tested by the NFL ?

AZ didn't release him until he returned to eligible status recently.

It would kind of suck to have to get tested for 3 years when you're not playing or practicing with a team.

I'm pretty sure they keep up the regimen and would not have allowed him back elsewise. I am not certain though but given how Goodell rolls I expect that.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK.

You just undermined one of your talking points against bringing him in. Because you started this entire thing by wondering what happens if he plays well? Well if he plays well but you believe the Cowboys aren't stupid, then there is nothing to worry about here. The Cowboys will make the right call when that time comes.

It's not like we are dripping with LB talent at this point either. So its not like we'd have to make a tough call on a talented, young LB to give Washington a roster spot.

Personally I would sign him to one of those 2-3 year Steve-o specials. Not minimum but only a couple-few times that much.
After that time a raise would certainly be an option if some conditions are met such as good conduct and play.

 

[Floatyworm]

This team never learns ......... has any of these problem children ever worked out?

Al Davis and Rolando McClain say "Hi"

 

[Sydla]

Personally I would sign him to one of those 2-3 year Steve-o specials. Not minimum but only a couple-few times that much.
After that time a raise would certainly be an option if some conditions are met such as good conduct and play.

Exactly.

If he sucks, you cut him with minimal pain. If he's good, you give yourself a nice rotation of LBs with Lee, Smith, Washington, etc. If he flashes some of that talent he showed before, you also have a bit of insurance with Smith.

And you obviously don't build a defense around him. You view him as a bit player not a cornerstone going forward.

 

[zrinkill]

Al Davis and Rolando McClain say "Hi"

I dont understand what you are trying to say.

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

He might give us another guy on NFL.COM's All Suspension Team. So far all we have is Tank and Ro

 

[dfense]

If you keep peeing in the pool, eventually, nobody wants to swim anymore.

 

[Idgit]

...The risk isn't the money, IMO. It is him playing well and then getting suspended just when you're relying on him.

Sure you could have a good backup but these suspensions and the media firestorm they create are a greater issue than simply having to replace a player. It isn't like an injury that you just plug in a backup. They create strife and discord that ripples through the entire franchise.

I agree with this. Weigh it against the potential reward and I'm ok with it. I mean, you don't do it if the guy isn't playing better than 'well.' You can find other guys to play well. But if the guy gives you probowl caliber LB play--like McClain actually did in 2014--I'm comfortable with it. And I'm comfortable with a spot on the 90 to find out if he's got that in him or not.

You just can't rely on these guys overly much. If they're great players, you bring them in, get the lift on a bad defense that you really need, and know it's going to likely evaporate at some point and it's only a stop gap. What we can't do is give a risky player a spot on the 53 and then pretend he's not a risk.

 

[AsthmaField]

OK.

You just undermined one of your talking points against bringing him in. Because you started this entire thing by wondering what happens if he plays well? Well if he plays well but you believe the Cowboys aren't stupid, then there is nothing to worry about here. The Cowboys will make the right call when that time comes.

It's not like we are dripping with LB talent at this point either. So its not like we'd have to make a tough call on a talented, young LB to give Washington a roster spot.

Read post #63... it isn't money that concerns me. In fact I don't think I ever mentioned money. It was so obvious that Dallas wouldn't do a dumb contract that didn't even think it worth mentioning.

Either you confused me with someone else or you just assumed that my issue was money related. It isn't. I don't worry about the team spending unwisely anymore.

Just like money was never an issue with McClain. It was his lack of reliability that bothered me.

It is all the other ancillary issues that I don't like in bringing in a potential suspension candidate.

Having said all of that, I wouldn't hate it to give him a try. I just was more talking about the fans who say bring him in and then complain and blame the team when he gets suspended again.

I hope this will clear up any misunderstandings you might have had about what I posted.

If you have any further questions or comments, please don't hesitate to ask.

 

[robjay04]

I dont understand what you are trying to say.

Many didn't even believe McClain was going to make the team when he signed him.

When many people's expectations were dirt low, McClain exceeded those expectations. He was a quality starter when he was healthy and clean.

Luckily the team never invested big money in him so they didn't lose in the gamble.

 

[LocimusPrime]

 

[BAT]

If you keep peeing in the pool, eventually, nobody wants to swim anymore.

You do realize that public pools average more urine than chlorine, right? When the weather heats up, everyone is swimming regardless.

 

[BAT]

You have a good point. Once you cut to 53 and use a roster spot on a player, it's a negative even if you don't have to pay him. You likely lost a player that you could have kept on the 53 and/or you didn't look for a veteran stop-gap like Durant because you have Washington.

Give me Washington over Durant. Washington is younger and better version.